You are viewing inked pages, which are delivered via the book spine, pulled together by their book covers, where the inked pages are written by the author and the book cover by the illustrator. The book spine is a whole different detail, with manufacturers taking the inked pages, and putting them between the book covers. So, you're not viewing "the book", you're viewing "the inked pages in the book."

Frankly, the internet is just a giant book spine bound by ISPs, with the browsers the book covers, and the inked pages the .html files.

But you know what? I'm viewing this on a thing we call the Internet.

Oh...kay. I think that analogy is more than a little strained. I'm just gonna leave it there, since this is a bit off topic for this thread anyway.

In light of the impermanence and absurdity of existence, I surmise that nothing is better for us than to rejoice and to do good in our lives, and that everyone should eat and drink and enjoy the good of his/her labor. Such enjoyment is a gift from God.

So my take is this, PC = IBM compatible PC which comes from the 8088 (based on the 8086) based IBM home computer that ran DOS (various forms) Any home computer that can trace it's lineage to the IBM PC is a PC. For anything else, they can be refereed to as Home Computers, Microcomputers, or in the case of Apple Macs (Apple I/II/III/Lisa notwithstanding). On the case of Linux and Unix on home computers, if the hardware is capable of running windows or dos then it qualifies as a PC. PC's are defined by hardware and software compatibility, not necessarily what they are running at the time.

So my take is this, PC = IBM compatible PC which comes from the 8088 (based on the 8086) based IBM home computer that ran DOS (various forms) Any home computer that can trace it's lineage to the IBM PC is a PC. For anything else, they can be refereed to as Home Computers, Microcomputers, or in the case of Apple Macs (Apple I/II/III/Lisa notwithstanding). On the case of Linux and Unix on home computers, if the hardware is capable of running windows or dos then it qualifies as a PC. PC's are defined by hardware and software compatibility, not necessarily what they are running at the time.

So my take is this, PC = IBM compatible PC which comes from the 8088 (based on the 8086) based IBM home computer that ran DOS (various forms) Any home computer that can trace it's lineage to the IBM PC is a PC. For anything else, they can be refereed to as Home Computers, Microcomputers, or in the case of Apple Macs (Apple I/II/III/Lisa notwithstanding). On the case of Linux and Unix on home computers, if the hardware is capable of running windows or dos then it qualifies as a PC. PC's are defined by hardware and software compatibility, not necessarily what they are running at the time.

...So, the newer Macs are PC's too then?

By this definition, not really. They're not much different from PowerPC Macs aside from the CPU itself. They just have EFI instead of Open Firmware like the PPC ones had, and EFI lets them fake being a "PC" so they can boot Windows or whatever.

By this definition, not really. They're not much different from PowerPC Macs aside from the CPU itself. They just have EFI instead of Open Firmware like the PPC ones had, and EFI lets them fake being a "PC" so they can boot Windows or whatever.

Legality is pretty much the only thing that maintains the separation for me.

OT:

Spoiler:

Also, fuck GNOME. Complete garbage. I thought Linux was terrible until I tried KDE. I did like Ubuntu even when it had GNOME, though.

Woegjiub wrote:Because then we can't do ... GNU/Linux.

Or, we can just redefine Linux as GNU/Linux. I like the term GNU/Linux, but most people will not deal with that term. Linux is simpler.

Is there any obstacle to that? Is Linux used in any other context? Could it even be used in any other context? (well, I guess I am massively ignorant, so I should not be so sure of that)

Turtlewing wrote:Really it's just a matter of Apple's branding and vertical monopoly creating the illusion that they are different while simultaniously Microsoft's horizontal near-monopoly makes the rest of the industry look homoginized,

Good explanation. The Apple vs everything else comparison really does break down quite frequently, though. That's one of the problems with it.

The difference in parts is nonexistent, though, basically.

Turtlewing wrote:Except, because of the lockdown, there ... in termonology.

Honestly, having operated on a number of laptops and desktops, the internals are almost identical. They are all made in the same factories in Taiwan. The only difference is that for desktops Apple sets a higher threshold for throwing out the bad ones, so they are somewhat more reliable. Macbook Pros also do have better battery life than basically all other laptops in the same category, but they are no longer lighter (until you get to 17"). I am just looking at Consumer Reports, though. There are so many brands excluded from their ratings that completeness cannot be assumed.

My honest guess is that Apple uses better quality batteries, but I have no idea why Macbook Pros get better battery life. Macbook Airs do not, also. Perhaps it has to do with the LCD. That's actually somewhat more plausible.

Vash wrote:My honest guess is that Apple uses better quality batteries, but I have no idea why Macbook Pros get better battery life. Macbook Airs do not, also. Perhaps it has to do with the LCD. That's actually somewhat more plausible.

I remember a Apple marketing video once saying it was because most laptop batteries (including older MacBooks) are just generic cylindrical cells in the container, whereas the MBP battery is a custom-fit set of Li-Poly cells that fill the whole pack, like in a lot of cell phone batteries. Thus they get better energy density for the same size battery pack. Also, they said making the battery non-removeable allows the space taken up by the latching mechanism to be used for more cell-space. When they switched the MBP to the "non-removeable magic batteries" they were able to increase the battery life about 50% without changing much of anything else about the hardware, so there must be SOMETHING to those claims.

No clue why the Air still gets "5 hours". Thinness of the battery, maybe.

So my take is this, PC = IBM compatible PC which comes from the 8088 (based on the 8086) based IBM home computer that ran DOS (various forms) Any home computer that can trace it's lineage to the IBM PC is a PC. For anything else, they can be refereed to as Home Computers, Microcomputers, or in the case of Apple Macs (Apple I/II/III/Lisa notwithstanding). On the case of Linux and Unix on home computers, if the hardware is capable of running windows or dos then it qualifies as a PC. PC's are defined by hardware and software compatibility, not necessarily what they are running at the time.

Just a little obscure history: Microsoft *has* ported Windows to machines not related to the 80x86 lineage before. Early versions of Windows NT ran on a number of RISC architectures.

(In my opinion, all of those machines were "PCs" as well, but my definition is pretty broad.)

shieldforyoureyes wrote:Just a little obscure history: Microsoft *has* ported Windows to machines not related to the 80x86 lineage before. Early versions of Windows NT ran on a number of RISC architectures.

cjmcjmcjmcjm wrote:YOU CAN HAVE EFECTIVE RIGHT-CLICKING AND SCROLLING ON A MAC. IF YOU NEED PRECISION FOR GAMING, GET A MOUSE LIKE YOU WOULD FOR ANY OTHER COMPUTER!

Hahaha.

Actually, I was in an electronic art class, and I used control or whatnot to right click. It was just fine. I would say that rudimentary touchpad gaming is better when the pad is not also the click, or you don't have to press control for right click. A separate mouse is ideal (though less portable) for that and for other applications you would want a seperate mouse button for.

Considering all the difference interfaces I got used to in childhood, perhaps I am being too inflexible, as well.

nerd: IT-people, i'm so glad to have a new iMac (i7), this intel-bullsh*t is annoying me since my apprenticeship.IT-people: ??!?, and how you're new mac is doing?nerd: very well, but i'm working almost on my virtual pc on the mac, Win7 is great!!

cjmcjmcjmcjm wrote:Is it still true that Gnome is more accessible than KDE? My blind friend uses Arch Linux with Gnome and refuses to use KDE because it doesn't work as well with his screen reader

because he didn't configure his install to be accessibility-enabled. qt (and therefore kde) does care about blinds, but they need to be smart enough to google how to enable the features essential for them.

cjmcjmcjmcjm wrote:Is it still true that Gnome is more accessible than KDE? My blind friend uses Arch Linux with Gnome and refuses to use KDE because it doesn't work as well with his screen reader

because he didn't configure his install to be accessibility-enabled. qt (and therefore kde) does care about blinds, but they need to be smart enough to google how to enable the features essential for them.

Maybe they need the screen reader to work in order to use Google. That reminds me of one of Windows ME's network troubleshooting wizards, which directed you to a goddamn website when your network interface wasn't working properly.

In light of the impermanence and absurdity of existence, I surmise that nothing is better for us than to rejoice and to do good in our lives, and that everyone should eat and drink and enjoy the good of his/her labor. Such enjoyment is a gift from God.

So my take is this, PC = IBM compatible PC which comes from the 8088 (based on the 8086) based IBM home computer that ran DOS (various forms) Any home computer that can trace it's lineage to the IBM PC is a PC. For anything else, they can be refereed to as Home Computers, Microcomputers, or in the case of Apple Macs (Apple I/II/III/Lisa notwithstanding). On the case of Linux and Unix on home computers, if the hardware is capable of running windows or dos then it qualifies as a PC. PC's are defined by hardware and software compatibility, not necessarily what they are running at the time.

...So, the newer Macs are PC's too then?

No, They don't have a BIOS so they are not PC compatible. Instead they use EFI. Bootcamp and it's equivalents trick the OS into thinking there is one.

shieldforyoureyes wrote:Just a little obscure history: Microsoft *has* ported Windows to machines not related to the 80x86 lineage before. Early versions of Windows NT ran on a number of RISC architectures.

(In my opinion, all of those machines were "PCs" as well, but my definition is pretty broad.)

I'm aware. I have a copy laying around somewhere. Although NT was a very different beast when it came around. I don't think aside form the guys who bought non-Apple power pc desktops in 1994, anyone was using NT as a desktop operating system in a home computer environment. It had a more white collar calling. Until it folded back into the popular windows tree with 2000 I would consider it more of a workstation OS.

zmatt wrote:I'm aware. I have a copy laying around somewhere. Although NT was a very different beast when it came around. I don't think aside form the guys who bought non-Apple power pc desktops in 1994, anyone was using NT as a desktop operating system in a home computer environment. It had a more white collar calling. Until it folded back into the popular windows tree with 2000 I would consider it more of a workstation OS.

Good point. So even a broader definition of "PC" that includes non IBM PC descendants should reference "intended for home use".

zmatt wrote:I'm aware. I have a copy laying around somewhere. Although NT was a very different beast when it came around. I don't think aside form the guys who bought non-Apple power pc desktops in 1994, anyone was using NT as a desktop operating system in a home computer environment. It had a more white collar calling. Until it folded back into the popular windows tree with 2000 I would consider it more of a workstation OS.

Good point. So even a broader definition of "PC" that includes non IBM PC descendants should reference "intended for home use".

Indeed a "Personal computer" is a subset of "Home Computer" There is a specification for PC's, although now a days it's an extremely loose one.

zmatt wrote:No, They don't have a BIOS so they are not PC compatible. Instead they use EFI. Bootcamp and it's equivalents trick the OS into thinking there is one.

So they don't have a BIOS but they're capable of imitating one...that sounds like compatibility to me...

In light of the impermanence and absurdity of existence, I surmise that nothing is better for us than to rejoice and to do good in our lives, and that everyone should eat and drink and enjoy the good of his/her labor. Such enjoyment is a gift from God.

zmatt wrote:No, They don't have a BIOS so they are not PC compatible. Instead they use EFI. Bootcamp and it's equivalents trick the OS into thinking there is one.

So they don't have a BIOS but they're capable of imitating one...that sounds like compatibility to me...

They aren't directly compatible. A Mac with EFI on it's own isn't capable of running windows. You have to emulate a BIOS through software. That's the crux of it. Getting windows on a Mac in a sense requires some kludging. IMO emulation =/= compatibility. But we are getting at semantics here.

phillipsjk wrote:I think I mentioned earlier, I don't think it has to be IBM-PC compatible to be a "PC" (ignoring emulation).

Sure it does. PC refers to a specification. Anything else that is similar but doesn't conform is a Home Computer. That term existed before the PC did, and on a broader sense you could call them microcomputers which is pretty archaic now.

cjmcjmcjmcjm wrote:Is it still true that Gnome is more accessible than KDE? My blind friend uses Arch Linux with Gnome and refuses to use KDE because it doesn't work as well with his screen reader

because he didn't configure his install to be accessibility-enabled. qt (and therefore kde) does care about blinds, but they need to be smart enough to google how to enable the features essential for them.

Maybe they need the screen reader to work in order to use Google. That reminds me of one of Windows ME's network troubleshooting wizards, which directed you to a goddamn website when your network interface wasn't working properly.

normally you think about a feature you need before you install a OS. but you are right. there should be a easy solution (like KDE detecting screen readers and telling the user how to intall acessibility support if it found one)

Most of the time, I run some form of Linux, such as Ubuntu, and I'm trying others. Any non-apple computer I've seen calls itself "system", "computer", and "PC", or sometimes "personal computer". I've never seen a Mac, and don't plan on selling everything I own to get one. In Windows, I can't help but noticing not only how much harder to use it is than Linux, and also how it has never refereed to itself as "PC", or I just never saw it. But again, "PC", "Personal Computer", a computer owned by YOU. In a sense, it doesn't need to be a desktop, netbook, or laptop, it could easily be a server, game system, or anything else with a processor, including cars and VCRs. You can install any OS YOU want on ANY of them. Keep in mind that, although it can be done, I am not responsible if you build a car out of you laptop computer.

NickNackGus wrote:In Windows, I can't help but noticing not only how much harder to use it is than Linux...

Must...not...feed...trolls.......

In light of the impermanence and absurdity of existence, I surmise that nothing is better for us than to rejoice and to do good in our lives, and that everyone should eat and drink and enjoy the good of his/her labor. Such enjoyment is a gift from God.

it’s not easy to prove that NickNackGus is right, since most people grow up with a windows machine (which is subsequently the OS they are accustomed to and thus easier. e.g. i can use forks and knifes better than chopsticks while chinese people do it vice versa.)

but having to use windows after using linux exclusively for some time is a major pain in the ass for me, so at least for me, NickNackGus is right.

That probably has more to do with your habits and less to do with the merits of the interfaces. Personally I find linux just different enough to be annoying and OSX is so idiot proofed and lacking in intuition that it hurts.